| Title |
Validation of the symbolic assessment of fatigue extent (SAFE)—a cancer fatigue tool with visual response formats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3499-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Subathra Jeyaram, Surendran Veeraiah, Vidhubala Elangovan |
| Abstract |
Fatigue is the most common under-recognized symptom in cancer. Administering fatigue tools in multi-lingual and multi-literate populations may affect the quality and accuracy of the data collected as they rely on language to elicit responses. The aim of the study is to develop and validate a tool to assess fatigue in cancer patients using response formats that are not language-dependent. The content validity of the tool was established using the Delphi procedure and was field tested with 102 cancer patients. Test-retest reliability of the tool was tested with 55 cancer patients and 47 healthy individuals. Convergent, concurrent, and discriminant validity and internal consistency were established with 374 cancer patients, 202 survivors, and 75 healthy controls. Qualitative analyses, descriptive statistics, product-moment correlation, analysis of variance, Cronbach's α coefficient, and exploratory factor analysis were conducted. The Cronbach's alpha of the SAFE in cancer patients and healthy individuals was .86 and .92, and their test-retest reliability ranged from .44 to .83. SAFE correlated significantly with measures of quality of life (QOL) (r = -0.54, p < .01), anxiety (r = 0.54, p < .01), depression (r = 0.5, p < .01), and sleep (r = 0.52, p < .01). The tool was able to distinguish between cancer patients, survivors, and healthy controls (p < .05). Two factors emerged namely "Fatigue Extent and impact" and "General fatigue" contributing to 52% of the variance in fatigue. A symbolic tool using visual response formats to assess fatigue and its impact in cancer patients was developed and standardized with good reliability and construct, concurrent, and discriminant validity established. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 43% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
| Psychology | 4 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,511,186
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,995
of 5,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#317,132
of 427,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#74
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.